Intel Woodcrest, AMD's Opteron and Sun's UltraSparc T1: Server CPU Shoot-out
by Johan De Gelas on June 7, 2006 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
MySQL Configuration
We spent weeks on tweaking our MySQL database to the maximum. The results were encouraging: performance was up to 3 times higher on our Opteron machines than out of the box. On the Sun machine, the results were even more impressive, especially when we started using MySQL 5.0. MySQL 5 runs horribly slow on the T1 out of the box, but we got up to 5 times more performance out of our T2000 server after getting some excellent tweaking tips from Peter Zaitsev (MySQL) and Luojia Chen (Sun).
All testing was done with InnoDB as our storage engine in MySQL 5.0.21. We optimized for a server with 4 GB of RAM. Here is our MySQL configuration:
The "query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. Our test database is still the same as in previous articles, about 1GB in size. The workload consists of more than 90% selects, thus this is mostly a "read intensive" workload.
MySQL Results
All numbers are expressed in queries per second.
Notice that the T1 needs about 20-30 MySQL threads to run at full speed; this is clearly a result of it's 8 core "4 thread Gatling gun core" architecture. It must also be noted that the out-of-the box MySQL performance is simply horrible, about 4-5 times lower than the well optimized numbers you see above. There is no escaping the face that you must take the time to read Sun's tunings tips well.
Once you do, the 1 GHz T1 is capable of performing like an Opteron 2.2 GHz, which is pretty amazing. Kudos to Luojia Chen and Peter Zaitsev for a job well done. While the old Xeon which consumed 4 times more power than the T1 to give the same performance looked pretty silly, the new Xeon 5160 easily outperforms the T1. The performance/Watt title will probably go to the low power Woodcrest versions, which we haven't tested yet.
Let us see what a single dual-core Woodcrest can do versus a dual-core Opteron and quad-core Sun T1.
As we were testing with only two cores, we brought back the Dual Xeon Irwindale for the test. We did a few extra tests on this platform as we also had the older Nocona platform in the labs. The additional 1MB cache of Irwindale improved our benchmark numbers by 7-8%, which is quite impressive. Our time investment in tweaking our MySQL database also made the caches and memory system more important. Finally, Hyper-Threading still doesn't pay off in MySQL: we noticed a small slowdown of about 7%.
We spent weeks on tweaking our MySQL database to the maximum. The results were encouraging: performance was up to 3 times higher on our Opteron machines than out of the box. On the Sun machine, the results were even more impressive, especially when we started using MySQL 5.0. MySQL 5 runs horribly slow on the T1 out of the box, but we got up to 5 times more performance out of our T2000 server after getting some excellent tweaking tips from Peter Zaitsev (MySQL) and Luojia Chen (Sun).
All testing was done with InnoDB as our storage engine in MySQL 5.0.21. We optimized for a server with 4 GB of RAM. Here is our MySQL configuration:
[mysqld]
port3306
socket= /tmp/mysql.sock
skip-locking
key_buffer = 1G
max_allowed_packet = 1M
table_cache = 1024
sort_buffer_size = 2M
read_buffer_size = 2M
read_rnd_buffer_size = 8M
thread_cache = 125
max_user_connections = 450
max_connections = 450
thread_concurrency = 16
The "query cache" was off, as we wanted to test worst case performance. Our test database is still the same as in previous articles, about 1GB in size. The workload consists of more than 90% selects, thus this is mostly a "read intensive" workload.
MySQL Results
All numbers are expressed in queries per second.
Notice that the T1 needs about 20-30 MySQL threads to run at full speed; this is clearly a result of it's 8 core "4 thread Gatling gun core" architecture. It must also be noted that the out-of-the box MySQL performance is simply horrible, about 4-5 times lower than the well optimized numbers you see above. There is no escaping the face that you must take the time to read Sun's tunings tips well.
Once you do, the 1 GHz T1 is capable of performing like an Opteron 2.2 GHz, which is pretty amazing. Kudos to Luojia Chen and Peter Zaitsev for a job well done. While the old Xeon which consumed 4 times more power than the T1 to give the same performance looked pretty silly, the new Xeon 5160 easily outperforms the T1. The performance/Watt title will probably go to the low power Woodcrest versions, which we haven't tested yet.
Let us see what a single dual-core Woodcrest can do versus a dual-core Opteron and quad-core Sun T1.
As we were testing with only two cores, we brought back the Dual Xeon Irwindale for the test. We did a few extra tests on this platform as we also had the older Nocona platform in the labs. The additional 1MB cache of Irwindale improved our benchmark numbers by 7-8%, which is quite impressive. Our time investment in tweaking our MySQL database also made the caches and memory system more important. Finally, Hyper-Threading still doesn't pay off in MySQL: we noticed a small slowdown of about 7%.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
91 Comments
View All Comments
JohanAnandtech - Saturday, June 10, 2006 - link
The test you link is running apachebench while testing how fast STATIC html can be sent. Our LAMP test has to run PHP, access the MYSQL database, make calculations on that data ... this called DYNAMIC content.If you do not understand why a static HTML page can be served many times faster than a complex one with dynamic content, well...
You are basically saying that a test is wrong because it doesn't give the same results as another test which tests with different software, different dataset. Duh.
BasMSI - Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - link
I noticed Johan.But still, it's stupid to use and publish benchmark results from a test that can't handle/test the systems at their max.
Come on, get real, it's like testing a Lada and a Ferrari on a track that can't do more then 100KM/H and then state, look how well the Lada keeps up with the Ferrari.
Also, what's wrong with static HTML tests?
I see no harm in those, many websites are still static.
And you used them before to show how fast the Opterons where, so why not again?
Now we have absolutly nothing to compare or verify....so bogus test-results.
BrechtKets - Saturday, June 10, 2006 - link
Maybe you should check the author of the aces hardware article.
Also not that those tests were done with apachebench en the tests now have been done with httperf and and autobench...
FreakyD - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
Dell has released some new servers with the new Intel Woodcrest platform. The pricing is less than for the older Netburst architecture servers... It looks like we'll have a price war on our hands, and of course AMD will end up losing that battle since Intel has lower production costs with higher volume.Also interesting to note, the 3.0Ghz Woodcrest Intel processor that was quite competitive in this review is the lowest end processor on the new Dell servers. Their highest end one is a 3.73 Ghz part. AMD's highest end dual core server processor is currently 2.6 Ghz. So there's additional performance gains for Intel vs AMD in a highest end server processor shootout.
I'm disappointed that AMD hasn't done more since they released the K8 architecture. AMD has also been slow to release their new server platform with Pacifica enhancements.
It's too bad that Dell has taken so long to begin using AMD in servers. They've held the performance lead for quite some time. With technology and market leaders changing so fast, they should have been faster to adjust their product lineup.
duploxxx - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
duh my dear friend.... the dell servers you are pointing to can be checked where? link?you are mixing woodcrest that is at max 3000mhz and the dempsey 3.73 both on the same platform. dempsey is still no match for the woodcrest and opterons, so thats normal that the price tag is that low...... and its already dead before it is even launched
check this review, the dempsey is still wiped out on 90% of all the benches by an old architecture and certainly if you would check the power consumption/performance chart.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeo...">http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xeo...
the proc cost of intel is certainly not lower than the amd ones... looking at the die size the woodcrest and conroe are bigger
@anand, those type of benches would be nice on a woodcrest, if you fail to give them now by "any reason" they will be available in the near future by other reviewers. so its always better to be the first :)
FreakyD - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
Ahh, my mistake, thanks for the correction so nobody else gets the wrong idea. Once again I'm confused by Intel's naming and numbering scheme to not know exactly what's being sold.Aileur - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
This is a sad sad display. And i dont mean the review, i mean everybody bashing this article and each other like their lives depended on it.Its a cpu review on a hardware site, try to put it into perspective.
You read it, you draw your own conclusions if you want to, you go on with your life.
ashyanbhog - Friday, June 9, 2006 - link
Sure our lives dont depend on it,but Anandtech was a site you could rely onto get unbiased reviews. I have configured specs for atleast 25 machines based on Anandtech reports. Whenever somebody asked which CPU or someother part was better, I would suggest that they search for its review on Anandtech.
Even in the IDF conroe demo, Anandtech failed to identify some parts of the Intel setup that could have impacted performance, it was only after readers expressed their displeasure that Anandtech did a second review with the updates that should have actually been part of the Intel setup preview
If this new found low of Anandtech continues, I'll have to choose a different site to base my decisions on.
Also remember, Intel has previously used and continues to use Anandtech review of its processors in its analysts meet and at other places. As somebody pointed out, even a $0.15 swing in Intel share prices alters its valuation by one billion dollar!!! Intel could buy a handful of review reports by favoring advertising budgets for a fraction of that money.
Anandtech made my life a little easier by giving unbiased reviews, looks like I'll have to get back to comparing results from a few reviews as I used to do before I discovered Anandtech
Slappi - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
The Message is Clear...........Anand is getting paid by the big Intel.
Seriously.... you guys should at least TRY to hide your bias.
I mean months of setting up and you miss a known error that falsely reports extremely low dual OP. numbers?!?
Woodcrest ROCKS?~?~?
Something tells me that is gonna come back to bite you one day in the near future.
AnandThenMan - Thursday, June 8, 2006 - link
well ya gotta love this statement:That's two words LOL